On 2023-02-10, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:43 PM Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote: > [...] >> according to the build logs[1] armhf fails to build (as only >> architecture) with > [...] >> LLVM ERROR: Symbol not found: __sync_fetch_and_add_4 > > I see that abel.d.o porterbox is offline. There is currently no other > porterbox for a DD to actually check armhf code on neon-less machine. > > Would it be possible to raise the armhf baseline to have some minimal > neon instructions ?
I am pretty sure the answer in the short term is "no", as that would effectively be a new architecture... longer term, "maybe someday ... but not terribly likely"? Mostly because 32-bit arm is arguably a legacy platform; there is little to no new debian-capable hardware coming out, and so adding support for an entire new port seems unlikely, or at the very least, a very niche target. Either it supports armhf as it is, or more likely it supports arm64. For an individual package that wants to make use of neon, the correct thing to do is to make the neon support detected at run-time rather than rely on it at build-time and enabling or disabling codepaths, features, etc. as appropriate. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
